Biography

Paul Burstow is a Liberal Democrats Party Politican. In the 2010 General Election the people of Sutton and Cheam voted for Paul Burstow to be their MP. The party received 22156 votes - 45.67 percent majority

Search Politician

Voting Summary

Immigration:

Voted strongly against making the asylum system stricter by tightening the criteria for acceptance, setting tougher rules for allowable activities and making it easier for government agencies to remove asylum seekers.

Europe:

Voted moderately against holding another referendum on membership of the European Union.

NHS:

Voted very strongly for GP Commissioning in the NHS (the policy that GPs should buy services such as out of hours care, ambulance services and hospital care on behalf of their patients).

Welfare:

Voted strongly for the UK state reducing spending on social security and welfare benefits, including state assistance provided via the tax system.

Increase Income Tax:

Voted very strongly against increasing the top rate of income tax.

Increase VAT:

Voted very strongly for increasing VAT.

Terrorism:

Voted very strongly against making the crime known as “Terrorism” different from murder and conspiracy to murder, having have its own special category for which the normal rights not to be detained without charge or trial can be summarily suspended at the whim of the Government.

Climate change:

Voted a mixture of for and against making the laws which enforce Climate Change policy as strong as possible.

Search Constituency

Recent Appearances

To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to the Answer of 12 March 2015 to Question 226858 and with reference to his Department's response to the freedom of information requests 2014-79 and 2014-2282, whether his Department holds any quarterly or monthly data on the reasons for sanctions in such cases.

To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to the Answer of 12 March 2015 to Question 226839, whether quarterly or monthly data is now available on the number of adverse employment and support allowance sanction decisions broken down by the Summary International Classification of Diseases since January 2014; and what the reason was for each such sanction.

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Secretary of State to undertake a programme of research into the costs and benefits of introducing an annual levy on sales to be paid by tobacco manufacturers, with the proceeds to be used to support tobacco control measures, to discourage young people from starting to smoke tobacco, to help existing tobacco smokers to stop smoking; and for connected purposes.

This Bill is about establishing the principle that the tobacco industry, which has done so much to harm our society, should pay more than it does now to help reduce the harm that it might do in the future. Like the majority of Members in this House, I warmly welcomed the announcement by the Chancellor last autumn—it was in the autumn statement—that he would consider a levy on tobacco manufacturers and importers. I strongly agreed with him that:

“Smoking imposes costs on society and the Government believe that it is therefore fair to ask the tobacco industry to make a greater contribution.”

I welcomed the announcement by the Leader of the Opposition that his party was also committed to such a levy. It is right in principle that the tobacco industry should pay for the damage that its addictive and lethal products cause. The industry is one of the most profitable on earth. The two largest tobacco firms in the UK market, Imperial and Japan Tobacco International, hold around four fifths of the UK market and achieve joint profits of about £1 billion a year. Charging those firms to help clean up the damage their products cause is a rational and justified extension of the “polluter pays” principle to public health policy.

In the United States, the tobacco industry is required, under the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act 2009, to pay an annual “user fee” to the Food and Drug Administration to fund tobacco regulation and wider tobacco control activity. In effect, that fee is independent of the wider US fiscal regime, and the proceeds are controlled directly by the FDA.

As of , the US Food and Drug Administration had collected $1.88 billion in manufacturer user fees, of which it spent $1.48 billion. About half a billion dollars went on public education, and another half billion went on scientific research projects to support additional FDA regulations on tobacco products.

In the UK, there is a policy parallel in the energy companies obligation, which places a legal requirement on the energy industry to invest in energy efficiency and related measures, especially for poor and vulnerable households. That leads us to a key problem with both the Chancellor’s and the official Opposition’s approach to the levy. The Treasury consultation on the levy, which was announced in the Budget but is still ongoing, does not include any commitments on how the money raised should be spent. Instead, it seems that the levy will be used simply to go to the Exchequer.

If a tobacco levy is introduced, the tobacco industry will have to decide whether to pass on to consumers some, or all, of the cost in higher prices. That would of

course have some public health benefits, as price increases are known to be the single most effective policy lever in reducing smoking prevalence. However, the potential benefits to public health can be fully realised only if the levy is used to fund tobacco control action, which is designed to increase the rate of quitting tobacco use over and above what might otherwise be expected as a result of price rises.

I strongly believe that at least some of the funds raised should be directed towards actions to reduce the harm caused by tobacco consumption. A research paper by the economist Mr Howard Reed suggests that £500 million could be raised without much difficulty every year from a levy based on sales data. If the programme of research proposed in this Bill were carried out, it would show that the recurring cost of tobacco control activity at every level—local, regional and national—could be met from the proceeds of the levy. Indeed, it is likely to generate a fund sufficient to support these activities as well as assisting deficit reduction.

That would include national action through Public Health England and regional strategy through regional offices and any future regional governance structures, and tobacco control work by local authorities and in the third sector. The funding would cover: stop smoking services, mass media and public education campaigns and research, and efforts to tackle illicit trade at local and regional level. It could also fund new initiatives such as a positive retail licensing scheme to help ensure that retailers do not face any new costs. I also note with interest that the Communities and Local Government Committee has recommended that some levy proceeds be used to help clear up the litter and environmental problems caused by discarded cigarettes.

Local stop smoking services play an essential role in helping people to quit. However, following the transfer of the public health function to local authorities, which I support, those services are vulnerable, because of the financial strains placed on local authorities and the difficult choices that they have to make.

There are already grounds for concern about how many people are being reached by stop smoking services. Indeed, the Health and Social Care Information Centre reported in 2013-14 that the number of people quitting had fallen relative to the previous year. Although stop smoking services are demonstrably highly cost-effective and greatly benefit the whole of society, the direct savings they deliver go mainly to the NHS and not to the local authorities that pay for them. That applies also to local action by trading standards officers and others, for example when it comes to reducing the scale of illicit tobacco trade. The Exchequer benefits financially from that action, not the local authorities.

I draw the House’s attention to NHS England’s “Five-Year Forward View”, published in October of last year. This includes a section entitled, “Getting serious about prevention”, which states:

“The future health of millions of children, the sustainability of the NHS, and the economic prosperity of Britain all now depend on a radical upgrade in prevention and public health.”

Those words will remain simply a pious hope if we do not find new ways of financing public health policy and that would in turn mean that the chances of bridging the £30 billion NHS funding gap identified in the forward view forecast will not be achieved.

The Bill also proposes that research should be conducted into how the levy could be assessed and collected. I would favour basing it on sales data made public by manufacturers at a local and regional level as well as a national level. That would allow resources to be focused on the areas with the greatest sales and the greatest prevalence rates, better targeting tobacco control in the future.

Like most of us in this House, I was delighted when the former Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr Lansley), said that he wanted the tobacco industry to have no business in this country. Smoking still causes hundreds of thousands of premature deaths across the UK every year and for every death caused by smoking, 20 smokers suffer from smoking-related disability. That is a terrible toll of death, disease and disability. It is why we must carry on seeking ways to improve public health measures to tackle smoking. A tobacco levy could provide vital funds for that purpose and I am confident that the programme of research proposed in the Bill would show just that. I therefore commend the Bill to the House and hope that Members will support it.

Numerology

Has spoken in 34 debates in the last year, ranking 229th out of 650 MPs.

Has received answers to 115 written questions in the last year, well above average amongst MPs.

People have made 8 annotations on this MP’s speeches, about average amongst MPs.

Has voted in parliament in 74.17% of votes, ranking 294th out of 650 MPs.

Has rebelled against their party in 0.98% debates in the last year, ranking 266th out of 642 MPs.

Data (images, statistics and information used to compile this page) from various sources including
“TheyWorkForYou”
(operated by mySociety a project of UK Citizens Online Democracy), Getty, the Open Parliament Licence, Parliamentary copyright images are reproduced with the permission of Parliament and the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license version 2.5.